Patent Law | Expert Legal Commentary
December 11, 2008
Cohesive Technologies v. Waters: Anticipated Though Non-Obvious?
By
John R. Carr
In Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an invention may be anticipated, even though it is proven non-obvious. The Court drew a clear separating line between the novelty analysis of 35 U.S.C. section 102 and the non-obviousness analysis of 35 U.S.C. section 103(a). While the general holding is perhaps well-founded, in a case such as this where the references cited under §102 and §103 were identical, the decision to remand seems wasteful and inappropriate.
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds
View a PDF of the judicial opinion
